利用冲突关系范式减少种族偏见:对 Mizael 等人(2016 年)的系统复制

IF 1.6 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Denise Aparecida Passarelli, Bryan Roche, Táhcita Medrado Mizael, Marcello Henrique Silvestre, Júlio C. de Rose
{"title":"利用冲突关系范式减少种族偏见:对 Mizael 等人(2016 年)的系统复制","authors":"Denise Aparecida Passarelli, Bryan Roche, Táhcita Medrado Mizael, Marcello Henrique Silvestre, Júlio C. de Rose","doi":"10.1007/s42822-024-00181-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mizael et al. (The Psychological Record 66:451–462, 2016) successfully reduced negative evaluations of Black faces and minimized the valence differences between ratings of Black and White faces by establishing equivalent relations that conflicted with racial bias. We replicated this procedure in a repeated measures design and included the doll test and an implicit test to investigate generalization. Nine children who demonstrated negative evaluations of Black faces were trained to relate a positive symbol (A1) to an abstract stimulus (B1) and B1 to images of Black faces (C1) over the course of 2 days. Baselines of racial bias measures were conducted three times before the intervention and then twice after. A follow-up assessment, including a test of equivalence-class maintenance and readministration of baseline measures, was conducted 15 days after the last baseline assessment. Eight participants formed an equivalence relation between Black faces and the positive symbol that was maintained 2 weeks after the intervention. Before the intervention, there was a significant difference between the evaluations of White and Black faces; after the intervention, there was no significant difference. Two out of three participants with implicit racial bias showed reduced bias postintervention, and one of the four participants with racial bias in the doll test displayed intervention generalization. Overall, our findings replicated the results of Mizael et al. <i>The Psychological Record</i>, 66, 451–462, (Mizael et al., The Psychological Record 66:451–462, 2016). However, the high level of disparity between stimuli used in the initial participant screening bias test and those employed in the tests for function change generalization pose challenges for interpreting the results. Further research is necessary to more firmly establish reliable function transformation and generalization procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":44553,"journal":{"name":"Behavior and Social Issues","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing Racial Bias Using a Conflicting Relations Paradigm: A Systematic Replication of Mizael et al. (2016)\",\"authors\":\"Denise Aparecida Passarelli, Bryan Roche, Táhcita Medrado Mizael, Marcello Henrique Silvestre, Júlio C. de Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42822-024-00181-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Mizael et al. (The Psychological Record 66:451–462, 2016) successfully reduced negative evaluations of Black faces and minimized the valence differences between ratings of Black and White faces by establishing equivalent relations that conflicted with racial bias. We replicated this procedure in a repeated measures design and included the doll test and an implicit test to investigate generalization. Nine children who demonstrated negative evaluations of Black faces were trained to relate a positive symbol (A1) to an abstract stimulus (B1) and B1 to images of Black faces (C1) over the course of 2 days. Baselines of racial bias measures were conducted three times before the intervention and then twice after. A follow-up assessment, including a test of equivalence-class maintenance and readministration of baseline measures, was conducted 15 days after the last baseline assessment. Eight participants formed an equivalence relation between Black faces and the positive symbol that was maintained 2 weeks after the intervention. Before the intervention, there was a significant difference between the evaluations of White and Black faces; after the intervention, there was no significant difference. Two out of three participants with implicit racial bias showed reduced bias postintervention, and one of the four participants with racial bias in the doll test displayed intervention generalization. Overall, our findings replicated the results of Mizael et al. <i>The Psychological Record</i>, 66, 451–462, (Mizael et al., The Psychological Record 66:451–462, 2016). However, the high level of disparity between stimuli used in the initial participant screening bias test and those employed in the tests for function change generalization pose challenges for interpreting the results. Further research is necessary to more firmly establish reliable function transformation and generalization procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior and Social Issues\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior and Social Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-024-00181-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior and Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-024-00181-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Mizael 等人(《心理学实录》66:451-462, 2016 年)通过建立与种族偏见相冲突的等价关系,成功地减少了对黑人面孔的负面评价,并最大限度地缩小了黑人和白人面孔评价之间的价差。我们在重复测量设计中复制了这一程序,并加入了玩偶测试和内隐测试,以调查泛化情况。我们对九名对黑人面孔有负面评价的儿童进行了为期两天的训练,让他们将正面符号(A1)与抽象刺激(B1)联系起来,并将 B1 与黑人面孔的图像(C1)联系起来。在干预前和干预后,分别进行了三次和两次种族偏见基线测量。在最后一次基线评估 15 天后,进行了一次后续评估,包括等价类维持测试和基线测量的重新施测。八名参与者在黑人面孔和正面符号之间形成了等价关系,这种关系在干预两周后得以保持。干预前,参与者对白人面孔和黑人面孔的评价有显著差异;干预后,没有显著差异。在三名有内隐种族偏见的参与者中,有两名在干预后显示出偏见减少,在玩偶测试中有种族偏见的四名参与者中,有一人显示出干预后的泛化。总体而言,我们的研究结果复制了 Mizael 等人的研究结果,《心理记录》(The Psychological Record),66,451-462,(Mizael et al.然而,初始参与者筛选偏差测试中使用的刺激物与功能变化泛化测试中使用的刺激物之间存在很大差异,这给解释结果带来了挑战。有必要开展进一步的研究,以更牢固地建立可靠的功能转换和泛化程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reducing Racial Bias Using a Conflicting Relations Paradigm: A Systematic Replication of Mizael et al. (2016)

Reducing Racial Bias Using a Conflicting Relations Paradigm: A Systematic Replication of Mizael et al. (2016)

Mizael et al. (The Psychological Record 66:451–462, 2016) successfully reduced negative evaluations of Black faces and minimized the valence differences between ratings of Black and White faces by establishing equivalent relations that conflicted with racial bias. We replicated this procedure in a repeated measures design and included the doll test and an implicit test to investigate generalization. Nine children who demonstrated negative evaluations of Black faces were trained to relate a positive symbol (A1) to an abstract stimulus (B1) and B1 to images of Black faces (C1) over the course of 2 days. Baselines of racial bias measures were conducted three times before the intervention and then twice after. A follow-up assessment, including a test of equivalence-class maintenance and readministration of baseline measures, was conducted 15 days after the last baseline assessment. Eight participants formed an equivalence relation between Black faces and the positive symbol that was maintained 2 weeks after the intervention. Before the intervention, there was a significant difference between the evaluations of White and Black faces; after the intervention, there was no significant difference. Two out of three participants with implicit racial bias showed reduced bias postintervention, and one of the four participants with racial bias in the doll test displayed intervention generalization. Overall, our findings replicated the results of Mizael et al. The Psychological Record, 66, 451–462, (Mizael et al., The Psychological Record 66:451–462, 2016). However, the high level of disparity between stimuli used in the initial participant screening bias test and those employed in the tests for function change generalization pose challenges for interpreting the results. Further research is necessary to more firmly establish reliable function transformation and generalization procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavior and Social Issues
Behavior and Social Issues PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
50.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The primary intellectual framework for Behavior and Social Issues is the science of behavior analysis and its sub-discipline of cultural systems analysis, but contributions from contrasting viewpoints will occasionally be considered if of specific interest to behavior analysts. We recommend that potential authors examine recent issues to determine whether their work is appropriate to the journal. Appropriate contributions include theoretical and conceptual analyses, research articles and brief reports, dialogues, and research reviews. Behavior and Social Issues is an appropriate forum for the work of senior scholars in the field, many of whom serve on the editorial board, as well as for the work of emerging scholars, including students, who have an interest in the contributions of a natural science of behavior to constructing cultures of social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信